Case law

Bahrenfus v. Bachik

106 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1991

That, they claim, puts them in the first category in Penrod/Brown v. … Unlike the plaintiffs’ allegations in Bedell v. Schiedler, supra, Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37 , 806 P2d 166 (1991), and Moore v.

Saif Corp. v. Carlos-Macias (In re Comp. of Carlos-Macias)

290 Or. App. 801 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 2018

We also held, citing our opinion in Brown v. SAIF , 262 Or. … Brown II , 361 Or. at 273 , 391 P.3d 773 . An example of that link that the court discussed in Brown II is SAIF v.

Stogsdill v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

204 Or. App. 779 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

App. 779 STOGSDILL v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION Oregon Court of Appeals. March 15, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

Demeyer v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

203 Or. App. 808 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 18, 2006

App. 808 DEMEYER v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. Oregon Court of Appeals. January 18, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

Jackson v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

202 Or. App. 672 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2005

App. 672 JACKSON v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. Oregon Court of Appeals. November 16, 2005. Case affirmed without opinion.

Complying Status of Flyways, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board

33 Or. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 1978

Carson v. State Indus. Acc. Comm., 152 Or 455 , 54 P2d 109 (1936).

State Ex Rel. Fraley v. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners

151 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 1997

In Simon v. Board of Co. … That question arose in Edney v.

V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

188 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 16, 2003

Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 US 244, 266 , 114 S Ct 1483 , 128 L Ed 2d 229 (1994); see United States v. Brown, 381 US 437, 445 , 85 S Ct 1707 , 14 L Ed 2d 484 (1965). … See Noble v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 485, 489 , 964 P2d 990 (1998). The board initially issued a policy statement, which had the effect of a rule. See Burke v.

Robles v. SAIF Corp. (In re Robles)

291 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2018

SAIF , 362 Or. 38 , 403 P.3d 776 (2017), affirming the board's order with a citation to Brown v. SAIF , 361 Or. 241 , 391 P.3d 773 (2017). Robles v. SAIF , 289 Or. App. 441 , 407 P.3d 981 (2017). … In our original per curiam opinion citing Brown , we overlooked the fact that the second issue is not resolved by Brown .

Solberg v. TICE ELECTRIC

212 Or. App. 430 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2007

The board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Compare Johnsen v. … v.

Lovelace v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POSTPRISON SUPERVISION

51 P.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2002

LOVELACE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POSTPRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A109610. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Motion to Dismiss August 17, 2001. Motion to Dismiss September 20, 2001. … Lovelace v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 183 Or.App. 283 , 51 P.3d 1269 (2002).

DeWolfe v. Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

66 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 18, 1984

PER CURIAM In these consolidated appeals, petitioner seeks review of the Land Use Board of Appeals’ (LUBA) order affirming the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners’ (Board) decision to grant a building permit to Jones. … We also defer to the Board’s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance, Cascade Broadcasting Corp. v.

Northwest Connection, Inc. v. Board of Pharmacy

108 Or. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1991

At its January, 1990, meeting, the State Board of Pharmacy (board) voted to hold a public hearing on ephedrine, which was then an over-the-counter drug. … Robertson v.

Sather v. Saif Corp.

272 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2015

Sather v. … See Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640, 645-56 , 325 P3d 834 , rev allowed, 356 Or 397 (2014) (so holding). Therefore, we reverse and remand this case to the board to make that determination.

American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Builders Board

63 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1983

However, after the Board issued its final orders, petitioners joined in a suit for declaratory relief in the United States District Court, Dependable Insurance Co., et al v. The Builders Board (D. Or. … Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v.

Messer v. Polk County District Boundary Board

65 Or. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1983

In Messer v. Polk Co. Dist. … In another context, the Supreme Court has defined “solely” as “ ‘[e]xclusively, to the exclusion of other purposes, persons, etc. * * *’” Bergsvik v.

Bartel v. State Board of Higher Education

30 Or. App. 849 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 1977

ORS 28.020; Vendrell v. School District No. 26C et al, 226 Or 263 , 360 P2d 282 (1961).

McEwen v. Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

33 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1978

Church v. Clackamas Co., 32 Or App 3, 13 , 573 P2d 726 (1978). … Plaintiffs elected to abide by the procedure utilized by the Board and cannot now be heard to complain of it. See Green v. City of Eugene, 22 Or App 231 , 538 P2d 368 (1975). Affirmed.

Emery v. Adjustco

82 Or. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 1986

As in Brown, the pre-order report is part of the record for our consideration. ORS 656.268(2); Brown v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., supra n 1, 52 Or App at 194 n 1. … SAIF, 77 Or App 640 , 713 P2d 1083 , rev den 301 Or 240 (1986); Alvarez v. GAB Business Services, 72 Or App 524 , 696 P2d 1131 (1985); Maarefi v. SAIF, 69 Or App 527 , 686 P2d 1055 (1984); Brown v.

State Land Board v. General Construction Co.

2 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1970

See Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 US 761 , 65 S Ct 1515 , 89 L Ed 1915 (1945); Montgomery v. Portland, 190 US 89 , 23 S Ct 735 , 47 L Ed 965 (1903); Cummings v. … We do not find the requisites for levying interest as approved in Abrams v. Rushlight, supra. Defendant cites Camas Logging Co. v.